2026:CGHC:4396 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 524 of 2025 • Sukhru Prasad Tamrakar, S/o Late Raruha Prasad Tamrakar, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 38 Shankar Nagar, 10 Parpodi, Dhourabhata, Parodi, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.).

... Petitioner versus

1. Pardeshi Sahu, S/o Late Dular Sahu, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Sahu Para, Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.).

2. Bideshi, S/o Late Dular Sahu, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Sahu Para, Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.).

3. Khemchand Jain, S/o Jabarchan Jain, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Hatri Bazar, Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.).

4. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District Durg (C.G.).

... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel appears along with Mr. K.M. Singh, Advocate.

For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel appears along with Ms. Preeti Yadav, counsel.

For State/Respondent No.4 : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

Order On Board

27/01/2026 1. Heard.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Additional Judge, Dhamda to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Digitally signed DEEPTI by JHA DEEPTI JHA Durg (C.G.) (for short ‘Civil Judge’) in Civil Suit No.123A/2019, by which an application filed by the petitioner, wherein it was prayed that issue a fresh demarcation, which was earlier conducted and report dated 07.02.2024 was submitted by the Tehsildar, Dhamda (C.G.) has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the plaintiff, who has filed a suit for declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction in respect of suit property, which is comprised in piece of old Khasra No.864/2, area 0.06 decimal/0.024 hectare situated at Patwari Halka No.8, Tehsil Dhamda, District Durg (C.G.). Initially, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC was filed by the petitioner for demarcation of the said land. Learned Civil Judge vide its order dated 02.11.2022 allowed the said application and Tehsildar Durg (C.G.) was appointed as a Commissioner and the writ of commission was also issued. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the writ of commission was issued to the Tehsildar Durg (C.G.) and the duties constituted upon the Tehsildar Durg (C.G.) to conduct the demarcation in the spirit of the order passed by the Civil Judge. Instead of doing so, he delegated/interested the said job to the Revenue Inspector and Patwari, who have conducted the demarcation and submitted the report, which was objected by the petitioner by filing an application under Section 151 of CPC. He further submits that the said application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide its impugned order. He submits that as demarcation was not conducted in terms of the order of Civil Judge, the impugned order may be set aside and a fresh demarcation may be conducted by the Tehsildar, Durg (C.G.) in compliance of the order dated

02.11.2022 passed by the Civil Judge.

4. Learned counsels for the respective respondents opposed the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that though, Tehsildar himself was not present during the course of demarcation, but the said demarcation was conducted in presence of petitioner by the Revenue Officers. The report which was submitted by them has been accepted by the Commissioner and thereafter the same was submitted before the Civil Judge. Thus, as such there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner, thus the writ petition deserves to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record.

6. The fact is not in dispute that initially, vide order dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure-

P/5), Civil Judge has appointed the Tehsildar, Durg (C.G.) as Commissioner to conduct the demarcation i